The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1887-10-01
DR. BURNEY'S REVIEW OF ARMOUR's
"ATONEMENT AND LAWS

The works placed in the note at the
bottom of this column are both from
the pens of divines in good standing in
the Evangelical church. This discus
sion upon one of the fundamental doc
trines of Christian Theology, and the
wide divergence in the views of the
writers, reveals the fact that Christian
doctrine, or that which has been held
by the Church as such, is being thor
oughly, honestly and earnestly criti-
clsed; not only by outside skeptics, but
by the strongest thought, widest cul-
ture and deepest piety inside the church
itself. "The New Theology" contro-
versy has come to stay, and this discus
sion on the atonement is only one phase
Of it. 1t shows the present trend of
philosophical and theological thought
in all the churches.
The book of DR.. Burney is review
of an able work, published last year,
from the pen of DR.. Armour, in defense
of the substitutional theory of atone
ment. "Atonement and Law was
noticed at the time at some length in
THE UNIvERsALIsT, as a somewhat
original presentation Of the argument.
In the review of this work, DR.. Burney
has indicated by his method of argu-
ment and criticism that we may look
for good deal of special pleading in
the philosophical discussion of the sub
iect. We are told in advance that the
discussion is to be more philosophical
than Biblical, because such is the char
acter of the work reviewed. The re-
view is piece of destructive criticism;
there is no constructive work in it.
The author has not given us his theory
of the atonement, though he tells us he
expects to do so at no very distant day.
DR.. Burney rejects the doctrine of
substitutional atonement as in conflict
with the moral nature of man, and the
laws of Gods moral and providential
government. But he does not discuss
the subject of sacrifice, nor does he no
tice the fact that in divine providence
the penalty of natural law is modified
by acts of human benevolence; and that
many blessings come to us through the
suffering of others for our benefit.
Christ suffered for us, if he did not
suffer in our stead; and we are bene-
flied by his suffering, if he did not en-
dure the penalty of our sin.
DIR. Burney's criticism of the views
presented by the author of "Atonement
and Law" on the relation of Gods
natural and moral laws as identical, is
very just. He points out the fact that
law does not proceed from the divine
nature by process Of evolution, but is
a creation of the divine will, as acts
and not natures, are causes.
In noticing Mr.. Armour's argument
that God saves some men by the neces-
sity of his nature, the critic presents
very pertinent question, and one very
difficult to answer from the standpoint
of partialism, when he asks, "Why
does not the nature of God make it
necessary for him to save all men, as
well as part, as that nature is infinite
and unlimited ?" He also points out
the inconsistency of the advocates of
substitutional atonement, in rejecting
the doctrine of universal salvation,
when the theory itself logically involves
the very doctrine which its advocates
reject as untrue. This part of the ar
gument is conclusive; in fact it is I'M
answerable from the standpoint of
those who believe in substitution.
DIR. Burney criticises the argument
for substitution based upon the idea Of
sin as a debt that can be paid by the
surety, so as to release the principal,
with decided ability. While there is
some similarity between sin and debt,
this very similarity shows they are not
identical, so that all the analogies de-
rived from principal and endorser to
support the doctrine of substitution fail.
If sin is debt, and Christ paid the
debt, then man is legally exempt from
paying it himself; and therefore, all
here or hereafter, in this
life or the next, is unjust.
The argument based upon the claim
that substitution is normal in law is
very conclusively answered. 1t is shown
that this claim is in conflict with a
universal moral judgment, and the
general concensus of opinion on this
subject; that it is illogical to reason
from the cases presented in the practice
of human courts, as to what are the
principles of all law, human and divine;
because there is more in the conclusion
than the premise that human laws do
not create, but only assume obligation;
and as they do not create obligation,
they cannot change it.
The author shows that Christ could
not be our substitute, or pay our debt,
suffer our punishment, and endure the
curse of the law for us, because moral
personality, moral responsibility, moral
obligation, moral character and moral
are qualities that cannot be
transferred from the guilty to the inno-
cent. The Saviour was not needed to